Free Range Chicken and Farm Raised Fish

Thank you for this! I'm a butcher, and I get annoyed with people going on about free range chicken and farm fish.

By the way another group that has PETA-esque attitudes in this direction is the AARP.

Tony, Memphis, TN
May 26, 2007 9:55pm

The following CBC site has lots of good info about fish farming:
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030204_salmon/main.html

It does not appear to be such a clear cut situation.

Jonathan Abrams, Ottawa, Canada
May 28, 2007 11:23am

When compared to massive chicken factories, however, "free-range" chickens lead more humane lives. They do not live in tiny battery cages with five other plucked and de-beaked chickens. Neither situation is comfortable, given the nature of agribusiness, but I prefer the lesser of two evils. I'd rather they live even marginally better lives than the brutal alternative. On the health note, more often than not, the same products are both free-range and organic.

Mika, Redmond, WA
May 29, 2007 6:25pm

Why do you care what kind of lives chickens lead? Spend less, and save up your savings to donate to a charity that helps people.

Dave, Rochester, New York
May 30, 2007 8:03am

They way we treat animals reflects our essential humanity and compassion. While animals are not people, people ARE animals (as evolutionary science has so clearly shown us.) We should be very careful when trying to draw very clear, very convenient, very self-serving distinctions.

While "free range" on a package does not always mean what we would hope, I'd suggest that the responsibility lies with us to do some research on the producers we are buying from. Some are indeed better than others. However, I would also suggest that ANY improvement is better than none. By buying free range we encourage the market to respond to our interests and perhaps offer even more humane options.

Simply saying that "chickens are dumb" and thus implying we shouldn't care is an ethically lazy argument for condoning the horrors of industrialized agriculture. You say that you grew up on a family farm, but have you spent any time at a big factory farm? It's gut churning stuff. I'm not a vegan, but I try to be a well informed and compassionate omnivore. I make an effort in the hopes that small change can lead to larger. Last time I checked, that's how ALL change starts.

Brian Smith, Studio City, CA
June 02, 2007 2:38pm

Note that chickens at "free range" farms are killed EXACTLY the same way as at what you call "big factory farms".

Also note that the video footage of the "horrors of industrialized agriculture" come from third world countries where such things are unregulated.

If you want to work to change the system, forming humane societies in China and Mexico would be a great start.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
June 04, 2007 9:07am

I love it when people make "learn your facts, stupid!" type accusations in forums like this. They rarely follow-up with accurate facts of their own.

First, let me make something clear: I am neither a knee-jerk PETA member nor raging vegan, just someone attempting to make a reasonable effort at being a compassionate omnivore. This means acknowledging that animals are sentient and experience instinctual anxiety and fear. Clearly, I don't object to killing them for food, as long as it is done in as humane a fashion as possible. I am merely making an argument for keeping them in living conditions that are more sensitive to their own (admittedly limited) psychological and biological needs. I'm not advocating that they should all live on some idealized "family farm" with Wilbur and Babe.

However, the "horrors" to which I refer go on daily right here in AMERICA. They are the WELL DOCUMENTED conditions that exist in the dark cramped battery cages and stifling crowded feedlots of our large farming operations. Places which are inevitably designed to maximize profit not compassion. Do a little OBJECTIVE research and you won't have any trouble finding evidence of these conditions.

I'm always bewildered and sddened by those who immediately try to mitigate their own potential guilt by pointing out that someone else, somewhere else, is guilty of worse. This is not a strong ethical position.

I don't live in China or Mexico. I live here, and here is where I want change to start.

Brian Smith, Studio City, CA
June 04, 2007 4:37pm

Brian Smith,

Pot->Kettle->Black.

Can you please provide some links to the "well documented" and the "objective" research you speak of?

Derek del Barrio, Austin, TX
June 05, 2007 9:06pm

Well, since you asked so nicely…

http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/welfare/scientists_and_experts_on_battery_cages.html

http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/welfare/experts_on_gestation_crates.html

http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/welfare/broiler_industry.html

http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/welfare/welfare_overview.html

http://www.atourhands.com/broilers.html

http://www.atourhands.com/battery.html

http://www.atourhands.com/gestation.html

Note that although the reports come from an animal advocacy site – the Humane Society of the U.S - they are well referenced and cited. Some might call the photos a form of “documentation.”

I concede that my choice of the word “horrors” was a subjective one. Perhaps the information and imagery here give you no pause for moral or ethical reflection. If not, then there is probably little more I can offer which will sway you. Ethics is not the coldest or most objective of sciences – though we wish it so. That way we wouldn’t have to struggle with complex and difficult choices.

I struggle with this one.

Brian Smith, Studio City, CA
June 06, 2007 12:01am

I found the HSUS links lacking. The highlights of quotes was nice, but they didn't convince me of anything -- and none of the quotes came from the stronger animal science/agriculture schools.

The atourhands pictures overall didn't seem cruel or abusive. (We do have cruelty laws in place already.) Obviously _you_ don't like the idea of chickens in cages. But I guess it does not bother me if the chickens are not being directly abused or neglected (which is not in the best interest of the rancher that's out for a profit).

Anthropomorphizing feelings on to a chicken is just asking for an emotional argument. For me this is not a complex choice. These chickens are being raised as food and I do not feel guilty about that. I'm pretty happy with our current cruelty laws -- and I think it's great there are people out there whistle blowing when those laws are broken.

Derek del Barrio, Austin, TX
June 10, 2007 9:57am

Let me leave you with a few final thoughts then.

Did you know that farm animals do not receive protection under the Federal Animal Welfare Act? Big Farming has successfully lobbied to make sure that the standards applied to livestock are not nearly as strict as the standards we apply to our family pets. Is this logical? I would submit to you that it is evidence of the very anthropomorphism that you decry. Our culture treats pets as furry loyal “friends,” with unique personalities and value as individuals. However, this same culture cares little for the treatment of creatures that are equally capable of affection and individuality. Is a pig’s suffering any less than a dog’s? They have been shown to have similar levels of cognitive ability. So ask yourself this…

If you saw someone treating dogs as we do pigs – keeping them in cages where they cannot turn around, where they stand in their own filth, where they never see the outdoors, where they are packed so tightly that they chew off each other’s tails – would you find that acceptable? Would we not consider this animal cruelty? In fact we do, and if an animal welfare agent caught you doing that in your home you would be charged.

With farm animals we simply choose to look the other way because it is emotionally convenient. I think this position is both ethically questionable and intellectually inconsistent. How can we maintain that a set of moral and legal criteria applies to one group but not to another identical group?

Brian Smith, Studio City, CA
June 12, 2007 4:11pm

John Robbins of the Baskin-Robbins' wrote Diet for a New America detailing mistreatment of animals raised for food and I recall being saddened by the painful practice of de-beaking young chickens in order to prevent them from pecking each other to death while in crowded 2 and 3 decked cages. I have always assumed Free Range chickens retain their beaks. Anyone know? Another thought is that when I bought my house on a tiny lake the previous owner fed the fish and showed me that when he slid open the patio door they came up to the water's edge in schools when they heard the doors...sentient?

Patricia Schulz, Seattle WA
June 15, 2007 12:48am

Though I don't believe it's required in order to label conditions "free range", it is implicit that chickens with more space will not require debeaking. It is most prevalent with egg laying hens who are kept in the confines of battery cages. The space is so limited that the stressed hens will peck at each other, pull out feathers, and in rare cases even cannibalize one another. The de-beaking process is indeed painful, and has been compared - by researchers - to a human having their fingernail pulled off. Chronic pain, tumors, and even depression have been noted in de-beaked birds.

Free range is best if you want the odds to favor more humane conditions for the chickens. As for eggs, ALWAYS buy "cage-free."

Brian Smith, Studio City, CA
June 16, 2007 12:33am

Is Free-range chicken better?

Pod cast episode #47 at Skeptoid.com is an accurate explanation of the deception of the marketing buzzwords “free range”. The scam being executed on that section of the American public ignorant of true home raised free-range chicken and eggs is reprehensible.

But the question is still unanswered.

Is free-range chicken better?

Having raised many different breeds of chicken myself for many years, I feel that I am uniquely qualified to answer this question.

First let me define what true free-range chickens REALLY are. What the term free-range is trying to emulate and is hiding behind is the idea of pastured chicken. A flock of chickens is free-range if it is allowed to have access to replenished natural pasture!
That’s right, pasture.
Chickens that graze on replenished pasture are CLEARLY superior to all kinds of store bought chicken. These chickens have access to fresh grass and insects, which is the key to their superior quality.
Pastured chickens are meatier, fatter and there fat and meat is darker.
They are also much cleaner that sequester pen raised chickens.
Having butchered chickens on a rolling three month schedule for many years I can tell you that their skin and feathers are much cleaner and do not smell like ammonia and feces as do pen raised birds. I also have had the regular occasion to inspect stomach contents of the culled flock and I routinely found 30 to 70% grass in swollen stomachs, along with insect remains, table scraps and regular grain and malt feed.
Eggs of these chickens have deep orange yolks and firm gelatinous whites and pastured eggs have a flavor and richness that is simply not comparable to store bought factory farm production eggs.

S

Lee Smith, Illinois
June 21, 2007 10:23am

Thanks for your insight, Lee.

As an "ethical omnivore" I find it frustrating that Americans don't realize how much the factory farming process has robbed us of flavor and quality.

And how ironic that the more ethical process actually produces a far superior product.

I know it sounds "elitist" to advocate that people stop buying the cheaper product. I know they will say they can't afford it. However, I wish they would see the "value" of buying a little bit less of a quality ingredient, rather than a whole lot of a bland and tastless one.

Brian Smith, Studio City, CA
June 21, 2007 6:39pm

Fads and meaningless labels like this are the reason why people need to reconnect with their food.
If you want good, healthy food, you need to take enough of an interest in it to be able to tell the difference for yourself (without being told by a shiny sticker that A is better, healthier and morally superior to B).

I don't care for organic, free range, whatever as a label. I care for the things people believe these tags stand for, don't get me wrong.

As a former chef, I take great interest and pride in knowing about my ingredients. Make friends with farmers. That way you can go look for yourself where your food is coming from.
And don't buy shrink-wrapped supermarket meat that is made to look "fresh" through clever lighting.

Organic supermarket food and free-range, pre-packaged chickens are typical examples of feel-good eco conscience mixed with just enough laziness not to care.

Kiki, Melbourne
June 28, 2007 9:17pm

I only just discovered Skeptoid, or I would've commented earlier.

On the free-range chicken, I always thought it just meant they had some space to move around, rather than sit in tiny cages forever. I know better now, thank you.

I would add a group of people besides PETA who are against farm-raised fish: Commercial Fishers. I lived for almost 4 years in a small town on the Oregon Coast, where fishing is a huge part of the economy. I worked in a seafood restaurant owned by a couple who had commercially fished for thirty years before opening the restaurant, and they staunchly believed that "Farm-raised" was a dirty word. I'd tasted fish before I worked there that was farm raised, and thought it tasted ok. When I tasted the same type of fish that had been wild-caught, the flavor was a huge improvement over farm-raised.

Jake, Corvallis, OR
December 05, 2007 12:32am

I have to agree with Jake: wild caught fish, in particular salmon, has a far superior taste and texture when compared to farm-raised. But I also understand Skeptoid's position that over-fishing is seriously threatening wild fish stocks. Locally, when non-native commercial fishermen have caught their limit, they are done. However, Native Americans (in Bellingham's case, the Lummi) are allowed to take "ceremonial" fish after they've caught their commercial limits. There is no limit on "ceremonial" fish, and they generally sell for the same price as the rest. With such variances in how wild stock is (or is NOT) being regulated, it's no wonder the catch is smaller every year and the government is considering projects like hydroelectric dam removal as an effort to help fish stocks recover.

Kat, Bellingham, WA
January 01, 2008 9:53pm

I'm afraid I have only just got round to listening to this episode. Here in the UK, in relation to poultry in particular, "free-range" is a special marketing term, indicating compliance with various criteria. These include stocking levels, slaughter age, access to open air runs, and componenets of feed.

Intensively farmed chickens still need to comply with some restrictions, but for example a stocking density of 17+ birds per square meter is permitted. This means that when approaching slaughter weight, birds are unable to move without stepping (and worse) on each other. Many suffer from burns on their legs from constant immersion in their own faeces. They gain weight so quickly that many are unable to support their own weight.

As for the intelligence of chicken, I cannot comment first-hand. However to assume they are unaware of their surroundings is I believe unjustified. And there is anecdotal evidence of being able to hypnotice many types of animal.

In short, I agree that the term "free-range" can lead to images that are untrue, and in some cases (as in the US by the sounds of it) is fairly meaningless, though less so here in the UK. But the desire to raise animals (including birds) in a humane way is not someting to just be rejected. If we are to eat meat, do we not have a responsibility to the welfare of the animal for the period of its life?

Of course maybe a major premise is that a chicken's life is worthless except for meat.

Rick Hirst, Oxford, UK
February 01, 2008 7:16am

I was shocked to hear about the standards (or lack thereof) for Free Range chickens in the US so I had to look up the regulations if any in Australia to make sure that the free range eggs that I bought in the past were not just a label. I am glad to report that the RSPCA in Oz seems to do a good job of defining the term free range so go buy some free range eggs with the RSPCA logo on it. Australia RSPCA accreditation info:
http://www.rspca.org.au/campaign/choosewiselyfaq.asp

Skeptic Aussie, Australia
February 12, 2008 10:13am

I was shocked to hear Skeptic Aussie was shocked to hear... I think its pretty common knowledge that American organic, free range, pasture fed, etc doesn't mean what it means on this side of the big ditch. Michael Pollan made it clear in print a few years ago with the "Omnivore's Dilemna".

As for chickens, I don't think BD paid much attention to the chickens of his youth. They display distinctive social behaviour that is surely inhibited by being crammed in tiny cages. We keep our hens as free range (not organic) and they are happy and healthy and we can't supply enough eggs at premium prices because they are much better than commercial factory ones.

kem johnson, 12 rd Rakaia New Zealand
March 21, 2008 11:29am

Even if you said free range eggs are "slightly" better I'd have raised an eyebrow. You said they're MUCH better. Surely this is measurable and quantifiable? How so?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
March 21, 2008 11:35am

Why? The taste, coulour,texture and size are superior to conventional, thank you very much. Subjective to be sure but at a price that is nearly double that of battery hen's eggs, they basically "run out the door".

The colour comes from the grass and assorted vegetation they consume, and the taste is most likely a product of the extra food they forage as well. The size of the eggs are likely due to the comination of food, excercise and their natural ability to interact socially and display the behaviour that comes naturally to them.

Thats what I think.

kem johnson, 12 rd Rakaia New Zealand
March 21, 2008 4:38pm

It would be interesting to do a taste test. I doubt very much that peoples' correct guesses would exceed random chance. I've certainly never been able to detect any difference in any of the qualities you mention.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
March 21, 2008 4:43pm

Its been done here with chefs... better than chance with the pros.

kem johnson, 12 rd Rakaia New Zealand
March 21, 2008 5:23pm

The whole of this podcast is based on a rather large and false premise. This premise is even mentioned in the podcast:

"...providing the fish we need."

Can you guess which word I'm having a problem with here? "Need". My malnourished and ill-developed vegan brain has a problem processing this word when linked to eating fish, or any other animal. The whole problem of arguing about how to regulate and police the welfare of fish, chickens, cattle, pigs, whatever would go away if we all realised that we don't "need" to eat animals.
That's the big issue here. Let's eliminate the undeniable waste, alleged suffering, provable inefficiency and plain needlessness of raising and using animals for food, not have to even think about arguing about it ever again and concentrate on making the world better by seeing to the human suffering.

Say... do you think we could feed food to more people if we didn't feed that food to animals...?

The only sensible statement in the podcast, IMHO? This one:

"If you're really concerned about the welfare of the chickens, don't eat them!"

Jawj

p.s. the rest of the podcasts are great, Brian, but this one hit a nerve.

George Stammers, London, UK
April 28, 2008 12:30pm

Hi

This podcast opened my eyes a bit. I buy only free range eggs, and am realistic about it, I don't imagine 4 or 5 chickens in a mile-square pen with massive smiles on their beaks. But I was shocked by the part that stated:
chickens in cages with a garden view window can be called free range!

Can anyone let me know if this is true of England's regulations?

Jack.

ps: like the podcast a lot, especially the one on organic food, thanks keep it up.

Jack Holmes, Sheffield, England
May 26, 2008 11:52am

I am a marine biology major at the University of California Davis, and I had a problem with his closing statement that "the bottom line is that fish farms are generally a good thing!" I am not sure whether he is referring to inland fish farms (which i know little about) or open ocean farms (of which i have some knowledge). If it is the latter then this is a gross mistatement that may lead some listeners to change their buying habits f fish in a detrimental manner. The benefits of fish farms are all profit based primarily. THey cause large amounts of water pollution through their fecal waste and the dense levels they are kept in promote disease which can spread to wild populations. A well managed, and let me stress that again, a WELL MANAGED wild fishery is ALWAYS better than a fish farm. For an excellent list on what fish are good to eat based on their conservation practices and fishing methods, go to the Monterey bay aquarium website and look for their fish guide. THey list which fish caught by which methods are ok to eat, including dangers such as high mercury levels. their worst list,t he avoid list, includes FARMED salmon, I am dissapointed that there was such a generic statement made about fish farms when it is such a complex issue that must be decided on a number of factos, many of which were not mentioned in the podcast.

Christian Denney, Davis, CA
June 19, 2008 11:08am

I recall catching a PBS special several months back which examined the impact of fish farms on local wild fish of the same species. Scientists who were studying salmon farms in Alaskan rivers were profiled, and the show aired their findings that the fish farms were breeding grounds for some particularly nasty parasites. The parasites latched onto any wild fish passing by the farm, and were so numerous that they killed great quantities of baby salmon. The show concluded that this was contributing greatly to the reduction of wild salmon populations in the area.

It's certainly something to consider in the wild-vs.-farmed debate. Consumers have no way of knowing whether their farm-raised fish came from landlocked pens or net enclosures in a river, much less whether wild fish are exposed to runoff or paraised from the farm...But it may be something that farmed-fish proponents who activate aquiculture as a way to save wild fish would want to see regulated.

E.K., Seattle area, Washington
June 20, 2008 3:13pm

Most farmed fish are fed on diets rich in fish meal - all of which is caught in the sea (generally consisting of small pelagic fishes like anchovies and pilchards). Why not directly feed that high quality protein to people?

Just as in the (scam) case of water-powered cars, you lose energy when you pass things through organisms (the "ten percent rule" tells us that only about 10% of the energy in each trophic level is actually available to be assimilated by the next trophic level).

(Essentially) All these farmed fish are fed on diets rich in fishmeal - which has been caught from the sea anyway. This is primarily because the (high value) types of fish people *like* to eat tend to come from high trophic levels (salmon, tuna and the like), and require high protein (fishmeal)-based diets, unlike smaller, lower-in-the-food-web species like anchovies and pilchards.

Once you get on to things like shrimp aquaculture, with significant environmental damage, things get pretty dire (and shrimp fisheries are generally pretty dire too in terms of tiny mesh sizes and terribly bycatch).

At the same time, virtually any fish caught using a bottom trawl is causing fairly serious environmental damage. The best fish to eat are those from "well managed fisheries" (if you can find one) that are caught on rod and line or in targeted midwater nets.

I doubt anyone that has actually been on a fishing trawler would really think eating fish is ethically more acceptable than a nice piece of beef.

James Stapley, Grahamstown, South Africa
June 25, 2008 8:49am

Tooooooo long

Mofo, CLC
July 31, 2008 4:06pm

Ahhh.. chickens. Nature's big thinkers.

Have you ever considered what is inside of a chicken's head?

Well, they have a LOT of feathers, and those ugly red things sticking up on their head and below their beak.

Then they have a beak and reasonably large eyes.

Now, lets think about that a little..

The feathers take up a fair bit of room. If you take them (and the horrid red things) away, they actually have quite small heads.

Then, they have the muscles to drive their beaks (and the horrid red things). If you remove that, then they have REALLY little heads... half of which is filled with eyes.

THEN if you consider that the tiny brains filling the back half of their tiny skulls have to controlling clucking, mating, eating, breathing and everything else, you will soon realise they don't have much grey matter left over for deep contemplation.

Hypnotise them by drawing in the sand? Not a problem.

You add a random event like that into a chicken's life and you can bet your tail it will be hypnotised.

The wonder of it all is that they don't drop stone dead in a sort of avian "blue screen" event...

;-)

Brenton, New Zealand
August 14, 2008 8:43pm

I like most of your podcasts, but this one expresses a very incomplete picture of the facts, particularly the fish farming. You need to really do some reading on this one. We see all kinds of problems in British Columbia where it's a huge industry:

- More aggressive Atlantic salmon escape and take over our more passive Pacific varieties
- Massive amounts of fecal matter from the farms completely destroy the surrounding ecosystem.
- Sea lice are a major issue. They breed in the farms and then transfer to the wild stock which kills them.

More information here: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salmon/

Ernst, Vancouver, Canada
August 19, 2008 4:55pm

I was just coming here to make one of the same arguments that is already been made in the comments. Unfortunately I found this podcast late, so I didn't get the chance to voice my opinion when it was still topical.

First I have to say that I am an omnivore. There are a lot of meats that I don't eat, but that is only because I don't like the taste. However I am also very compassionate to animals and don't wish to harm them any more than necessary. If it is necessary to kill them to feed the population, so be it. However they do not have to torture them in the process.

I was going to come and mention "A Diet For New America" as someone has already mentioned as a prime example. Factory chickens are kept in cages and they indeed have their beaks removed to stop pecking at each other. Imagine if you were cooped up in a cage next to someone 24/7, you would want to peck them too! Secondly, some of the chickens have actually become deformed to fit in the cages and from lack of movement. Certain chickens have even been discovered to have had their feet actually grow into the cages as part of the cage from lack of free movement.

You can't argue that a human in a vegetative state is less intelligent than a chicken, as they can't even feed themselves as a chicken can. However even these people are maneuvered frequently to prevent bed sores. Chickens develop body injury from lack of movement in these cages.

Killing them to eat is one thing, but we shouldn't have to torture them.

Jennifer, Raymond, NH
August 24, 2008 11:26pm

The problem, in general, when people arguing for animal rights make the "how would you like it" argument is that you are applying human thought and emotions to an animal that might be too stupid to know any better.

You have to have a certain amount of self-awareness to know you're being "tortured," outside of acts that are actually painful.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
September 10, 2008 7:48am

Jeremy, your implication seems to be that animals on CAFO-type farms do not experience much in the way of "acts that are actually painful." Can you back that up?

Johanna, College Park, MD
September 10, 2008 8:39am

I have a friend who truly has free-range chickens (hand-fed in her backyard) and their eggs are extremely good. While they don't taste the same, I feel like the cage-free eggs I get at the store, taste better than the regular, white, cheap eggs. I actually find those flavourless. I realize that my friend's chickens have a different diet, which may be why they are better. Also, the cage-free eggs are almost always brown and I am comparing them to white eggs. But, still, has anyone else experienced this, or am I just biasing my own opinion?
This podcast was depressing, you think you are trying to do a good thing...sigh.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
September 11, 2008 3:19pm

Yes, I have experienced this Elaine.

I was given a plate of what I thought was organically grown eggs. I loved them, they tasted wonderful. Whne the chef told me that I was just eating grade AA farmed raised eggs, I learned a powerful lesson about the mind. I was duped into thinking one product was better because it had an organically grown label on it.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
October 30, 2008 7:44am

Regarding the claim that "Fish farming is considered a good thing by such a large consensus that you have to dig pretty deep to find criticism of it," I would point out that criticism of aquaculture appears in a number of mainstream journals. As just one example, here's the first sentence of a 2005 paper "The relationships between stocking density and welfare in farmed rainbow trout":

"There is increasing public, governmental and commercial interest in the welfare of intensively farmed fish [...]."

Regarding specific welfare concerns associated with fish farming, I recommend a 2006 paper, "Current issues in fish welfare" (http://www.viande.info/documents/rapports/current-issues-fish-welfare.pdf). Table V on pp. 356-57 reviews a number of studies documenting increased stress and other correlates of suffering that result from farming practices like transportation, enforced social contact, and seven-day food deprivation prior to slaughter.

Finally, you mention that "No doubt there are fish farms where the water quality is deleterious to the fish, but since this hurts the farmers more than anyone else, they're in the minority." Are you aware of specific data on this point? Fish farms will only act to reduce water-quality degradation to the extent that marginal costs exceed marginal benefits, which generally implies lower than optimal welfare because fish suffering is an externality to the calculations.

Alan Dawrst, PA, USA
January 05, 2009 2:44pm

I've noticed over the episodes an occaisonal comment about how major networks that claim to be science-based (i.e. Discovery, History, etc.) are only superficially that. I never gave it too much thought, because I never expected Mythbusters to be trully scientific, but entertaining nonetheless. Just a few minutes ago watching a program about turkey farming, the announcer discussed free-range turkeys. The comment was false (claiming that free-range means what is pop-traditionally thought). Then it occured to me, How many people accept sources such as Discovery Channel as a reputable source? Programs like the Mythbusters are great; and there is no problem learning more about different things in our world through an hour or so of television. The detriment comes when people fail to recognize differences between sources such as these and peer-reviewed scientific journals. Mr. Dunning, you couldn't be more right in your concern for the thoughtless acceptance of pop-science that seems to be continually feed to us by what superficially is a reputable source.

Leland Geletka, Columbus
January 17, 2009 10:57am

I slaughter hens, i dont see anything wrong with that! its for the money!

Beau, Auckland/ New Zealand
March 03, 2009 3:02pm

I just do it for the fun of it...

Brenton, New Zealand
March 03, 2009 3:51pm

Many people don't eat meat because of the conditions of slaughter houses and the conditions the animal must face leading up to the slaughter house. From what research I've done slaughter houses are almost always inhumane. In my opinion, the whole system need refurbishing. Within equitable bounds, we ought to be treating animals better leading up to their death. The fact that (cattle more so than poultry) must face the hooks and knives that will eventually be flaying them is ridiculous and malicious. We need to be humane even when we're dealing with non-humans.
I think that not eating meat, which has noble intentions and requires a strong will (especially in this society) is headed in the right direction. However, it's not that eating meat is bad it's that we eat too much too often and don't pay enough attention to the systems and regulations required to get a chicken / calf / or pig from their pen to our plate.

Paul, Boston MA
March 28, 2009 11:44am

Paul, the answer is to hunt your own meat.

And with a long weekend coming up, the opportunity is there.

:-D

Brenton, New Zealand
April 06, 2009 7:39pm

I have just done some research reading up on animal welfare codes for farm animals, and was pleased to find out that no chickens raised commercially in New Zealand are raised in cages -- 99.5% of chickens are housed in sheds, which must have ventilation, temperature, lighting and ammonia levels controlled for (the remainder, as far as I could gather, given that they are not classed as fully housed, must be free range). What worried me, however, was the population density of these chickens -- 48kg per square metre (and yes it did occur to me that free-range chickens may not necessarily be better off in this regard) as well as the wasteful culling of runts and surplus "stock". That did, in fact, lead me to consider fish farms. Your article mentions water quality and ecological impact of wild fishing, but do you know anything of usual population densities of farmed fishes?

Nicky, New Zealand
April 22, 2009 9:11pm

Freerange chickens have nutritional benefits. Their diet is much more natural than the commercial rations which have advertised for years "100% animal protein free" and such. Chickens naturally are not vegetarian, and vital nutrients are missing.
You are correct that standards are not very strict, therefore I say try to find local farmers that you can see truly freerange their birds, in pastures and such, where they have the opportunity to eat a normal, healthy diet of bugs, lizards, and anything else they can catch.
Don't forget that having your own backyard flock ensures you know what you're getting and they can be fun to raise.

Royal Tyler, Jr., Shreveport, LA (USA)
May 08, 2009 6:31am

A truly free ranged chicken is not protected from predators such as hawks, raccoons, foxes, etc. And if it is never medicated, may succumb to easily preventable diseases.

I think they do prefer outside. Mine rush the door & refuse to be herded back until night time, but I'd never just let them go with no protection. Just like I wouldn't just let my children roam unattended and unprotected.

Dana, Nebraska
June 07, 2009 11:52am

Free Range is a meaningless term. For example, Petaluma Poultry which sells the Rosie and Rockie brands of chickens, considers their chickens "free range" but according to their website, their chickens are raised in poultry houses with access to outside pens but the chickens are packed in the poultry houses at a density of 1 per square foot and the outside pens are 50% to 100% the size of the poultry houses. Therefore at most, the chickens live in a density of 1 chicken per every 2 square feet.

I live out in the country on 5 acres and have 10 chickens who love being outdoors. For safety, they are in a coup and pen at night, but in the morning when I open the pen, they go rushing out to start foraging. They definitely have a preference for grass and brush and gardens. Their favorite foods are earthworms, bugs and slugs. They love running about and scratching. If I kept chickens at the density of a company like Petaluma Poultry, I would have 500+ chickens in the pen and coop. Such density is unthinkable. At those densities any outdoor area they would use would be decimated.

The legal definition of "free range" needs to be established and provide something like at least 100 square feet per chicken.

Daniel, Bow, WA
July 11, 2009 8:02am

Thank you for showing that the free range label is meaningless in the US.

I don't think the intelligence of the chicken matters to the ethical issue. To claim that because the chicken looked dumb to you during your childhood, that they don't appreciate any difference between being in the pen or walking around outside is not a convincing argument. That's just anecdotal evidence. You're not a chicken psychic who can tell what chickens think and feel (if they do).

But, to claim that chickens are intelligent is to make a positive claim that needs evidence. I haven't seen research either way. I'm not even sure if the chicken is conscious at all. However, I tend towards the position that they are. Don't they have to "see" their prey, see mates, see chicks?

I don't think chickens can appreciate "in the pen" versus "outside the pen" on an intellectual level, but maybe on an emotional level they can. It doesn't take a lot of smarts to be "happy" or "sad".

Even setting that aside, there are physical benefits of exercise and being able to stretch out and move around for the chicken. That would increase the quality of life.

I agree with your last argument: if you have ethical qualms about the chicken being raised and killed, don't eat chicken. That's something you can do. I'm a vegan. I have to work at maintaining a healthy diet, but it is possible, and if you have an ethical commitment, don't be lazy about it. Free range chicken advocates just like the taste of chicken too much.

Jarek, Ohio
August 17, 2009 1:52pm

Arguing against the bastardized term "free range" is fine: It's meaningless because the corporate poultry industry wants it to be. Twisting that argument to mean there is no ethical, nutritional, or environmental advantage inherent in providing animals a more balanced and natural diet and life is tortured. It's like saying that because the food label descriptors "lite" or "low fat" are essentially meaningless, it doesn't matter how much fat a food contains.

And supporting that failed argument (one that repeatedly refers to chickens as "he") with a childhood appraisal of bird intelligence and then using *that* to channel the chicken experience is just bizarre.

This is not skepticism. It is begging the question.

You claim the farmed fish argument is more complex, but you take care of that swiftly by avoiding it completely and instead arguing against some statements on the PETA Website. The case against fish farms is not that none should exist; it is that those now operated by major industrial fisheries are unhealthy and environmentally destructive for the fish, humans, and the oceans.

The line of argument here is not skepticism, it is a combination of strawman, ad hominem, and (just to make sure the fishies have their say) red herring. It's like rebutting the case against factory farms (industrial slaughterhouses) by claiming opponents are out to destroy small, idyllic family farms.

Wake me when your "skepticism" consists of something other than "talking points."

hilarie, Merced
August 29, 2009 10:00am

"I personally spent enough time around chickens to feel assured that a chicken's life is no richer when he's outdoors than when he's indoors."

-Really? You're denying the benefit of fresh air to a living creature? I really struggled through the rest after reading that.

Sarah, Detroit
October 28, 2009 6:38pm

Your comparison between raising chickens indoors and outdoors is faulty; most non-free-range chickens are not simply confined to an indoor yard, they are actually confined to small battery cages. This is a pretty significant difference from an animal welfare perspective, since they cannot even, as you said, "walk... around clucking and pecking at stuff on the ground trying to eat."

You also failed to mention one of the biggest problems with aquaculture: waste disposal and management, which is often done very irresponsibly.

Adam, BC
November 08, 2009 12:51pm

I raise chickens in the true meaning of the word free range. They are free to roam where ever, some days I see them way out in the field and otherdays they are deep in the ravine.
The chickens love to be in the garden and can be a pest when I am tring to dig potatoes. They seem to clean up the worms for a added treat as well as every other potaoe.
You can pick them up and pet them or let them sit on your shoulder while you walk around they are content.
We should all go out of our way to know where our food comes from.

Richard McDermott, Pepin, Wi
November 17, 2009 7:12am

Freerange is up and cuming in SA we as a 3rd world country is doing our best to keep up and reeding this is making me think that the ignorance of the "AMERICANS" is that what they make it to be.How can you gustafi keeping chickens in a small confind area rather than in frech air and day light WHATS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Werner, south africa
December 10, 2009 4:29am

Tell me why free range chicken eggs have much more orange yolks than regular store-bought eggs. I'm actually asking for some skepticism to show that the orange-ness is not due to any healthier quality and that a healthier egg does not come from a healthier chicken. If you can't show it, then change your position.

Chickens with multiple heads crammed into a small space covered in crap giving out pale-yolked eggs sure sounds just as healthy to me as (true) free-range... oh wait.

Bob, Scranton
December 10, 2009 7:39am

Sarah: "-Really? You're denying the benefit of fresh air to a living creature? I really struggled through the rest after reading that."

You're attributing human qualities to a non-human animal. We humans like to be out in the open and dislike cramped, dark spaces - but lots of other species differ from me in this regard. Take the earthworm, mouse, mole, and bat for just four examples.

Humans like to be out in the open, out of small pens. This is in part because humans are pack animals that get along with each others far better than do chickens.

Safe-Keeper, Norway
January 18, 2010 3:11pm

"You're attributing human qualities to a non-human animal. We humans like to be out in the open and dislike cramped, dark spaces - but lots of other species differ from me in this regard. Take the earthworm, mouse, mole, and bat for just four examples.

Humans like to be out in the open, out of small pens. This is in part because humans are pack animals that get along with each others far better than do chickens."

First, it's not a huge leap in logic to compare human cognitive experience with that of other animals. We evolved in the same space and share the same sensory inputs (even if the 'dials', if you will, are turned to different settings for different animals). Three of your four examples (bats, moles and mice) most certainly do not enjoy being confined or tormented (this is a plain fact; if you disbelieve it, and are so callous, go and find a mouse for yourself and see how it responds to being injured or kept in tight confines) and the first example (earthworm) is from an entirely different evolutionary branch (worms don't have a complex central nervous system).

Second, you're painting with far too broad a brush when you state, "Humans like X and X." Humans are incredibly VARIED, and likewise, their cognitive abilities are varied. They don't merely vary from person to person, either - they change as you grow older, get tired, imbibe alcohol, etc. By your or Mr. Dunning's line of reasoning, surely it was alright for Ted Bundy to rape Joni Lenz while she slept.

Kevin R Brown, Calgary, AB
February 20, 2010 10:25pm

Wow Kevin, that last line is one of the most efficient ways to lose an argument I've ever seen. Not only is it not an apt analogy to what was being argued, it's terribly offensive as well.

Congratulations.

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 21, 2010 8:09am

From Time.com
Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food...

"SOMEWHERE IS IOWA, A PIG IS BEING RAISED in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he'll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around..."

Sue, Indianapolis
March 07, 2010 11:30am

Kevin,

You state that human beings show great individual difference to the degree that, on the strength of your closing analogy, some may actually have no objection to being raped. Obviously this is ludicrous and it would appear that you have allowed emotion to cloud your reasoning, so I will not debate this point with you.

However, we only know how a human beings feels about anything because we can ask the human or usually correctly interpret their human expressions (which, (most recently) Haidt et al 2010 have shown to be universal amongst humans). We cannot do this with a chicken ergo we cannot easily know how a chicken responds to a given stimulus.

Secondly, it is a -huge- leap of logic to assume that other animals have very similar cognitive capabilities and preferences to humans, especially when their brains are as comparably underdeveloped as chickens. One need look no further than the dramatic differences between the preferences of wolves and dogs e.g. wolves actively fear human company and attempt to flee when humans come near, wolves show stronger pack mentality etc. To compare the preferences of a chicken to those of a human is just asinine other than in the basic drives such as hunger and pain avoidance.

Lastly, Bob, why presume that the colour difference in free range eggs indicates their superior quality when there is no immediate evidence upon which to base such a claim? Why not assume that it indicates lower quality in the absence of contrary data?

Ben, London
March 30, 2010 3:22pm

I do find your observations very logical. And I do understand that chickens may not have the intellectual ability to differentiate if it likes being indoors or outdoors. But being that I understand that living organisms across this planet do seem to be healthier when they get good amounts of sunlight (have you ever been to Seattle?), I tend to go with the conclusion chickens raised with contact with the outdoors tend to be healthier, and thus healthier to eat, intellectual capacity notwithstanding. I do think too it doesn't really make much of a difference if they are raised indoors or outdoors for the most part, but I tend to prefer the animals I eat are treated as humanely as possible. I also think you loose a little credibility when you resort to some name-calling of PETA supporters. Irregardless of the fact that PETA tends to be very extreme in their approaches to defending animal rights, rights which I do think are vital defend, and that I do feel PETA crosses some lines in the process, I still come away from your comments feeling that you may not be very impartial about this topic. Sounds to me as if you have more of an axe to grind, and it detracts from the valuable information you are trying to disseminate. But other than that observation, I do feel I have learned some very important things about this issue, and your comments have helped me come to a more definitive conclusion for myself and how I plan to purchase chicken and fish to eat in the future.

Wes, Virginia
April 22, 2010 8:28am

While I like most of your podcasts I also take exception to this one and feel you are overly dismissive of several things:

Firstly not all of your listeners live in the US. In the UK the Term Free Range is much more binding than you say it is in the US. I'd forgive you this one though.

Secondly and more importantly non-free range conditions can be much much worse than you suggest. Battery hens in particular get a tortuous ordeal.

I'm sure lower intelligence generally means lower requirements for happiness - I believe a common gauge is whether the animal is permitted to 'exhibit natural behaviour'. That sounds a bit vague but in a chickens case I imagine it means being able to walk around and peck stuff, have space to flap their wings occasionally, preen etc and live without minimal pain.

In the UK at least, I believe that to be the case for Free Range - or at least close to it. It certainly is not the case for conventional chicken farms and battery caged hens.

Both Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall made great programs about chicken farming, the best I could find right now is this youtube which at least shows the conditions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpbtBgLfl90

If anyone can watch the Jamie and Hugh programs and still not at least 'want to afford' to spend a bit more on reduced suffering I'd be concerned.

David Williams, UK
June 01, 2010 11:25am

Comment directed at Brian:

I was trying to impress this argument on a California-dwelling friend of mine tonight, when I had it brought to my attention that there's no obvious citation for the rather key comment you make about "Free Range" chickens having not much greater living space than do "regular" chickens.

It would seem to me that this statement would need some backing up, and some more detail and specifics, as it seems...rather key to your dismissal of Free Range Chickens as not-much-better, ethically, than Regular Chickens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Free Range eater--I'd probably still each them if they could do Trigonometry, what I'm addressing here is an apparent hole in your argument, or at least part of it. I've looked at the citations provided in the written version of this episode, and don't see anything particularly damning or specific about animal "personal space" with Free Range poultry farmers. If I'm being dense and not seeing it somehow, I'd like to know.

Skeptically yours,

Jesse

Jesse, Cleveland
June 27, 2010 8:21pm

Terrible reporting. I suggest you stick to a few subjects because your obvious lack of information is quit evident. Fish farming is in fact a large problem because of the amount of waste created. Please research that aspect you did not do a very good job.

Skeptoid, USA
July 24, 2010 5:08pm

Your conclusions about free range chickens and fish farming match my own. However, I would like to see more citations for your claims about fish farming. I have heard concerns that farm raised fish are exposed to dangerous chemicals that wild fish are not, and that actually eating these fish could be worse for consumers. Do you know of any peer reviewed sources that could either confirm or refute this claim?

Chuck Beddow, Aptos, California
August 04, 2010 8:39pm

I'm not sure I quite understand your statements concerning chickens intelligence. Are you saying that because chickens aren't smart it makes no difference whether they are caged or not? How does one evaluate chickens happiness.
I wonder if there is any information on the nutritional difference between the two. My reading shows eggs from true free range chickens to be better nutritionally.
Also there are different "strains" of salmonnella. Were the strains evaluated the same?

T.Smith, Syr, NY
August 23, 2010 5:55pm

The global industry doesn't seem to condone your opinion. According to WorldPoultry.net "the majority of the studies clearly indicate that a cage housing system has an increased risk of being Salmonella-positive in comparison to non-cage housing systems" (http://www.worldpoultry.net/background/salmonella-thrives-in-cage-housing-7481.html).

Don't confuse being skeptic and being contrarian.

All the best

Renaud, France
August 27, 2010 7:08pm

The conditions of free range chickens as defined by UK Law have been the subject of mass media shock reports for decade over here. It is why major supermarkets suppliment their Organic and Free Range labels with kite marks indicating ethical treatment of the poultry, endorsed by the likes of the RSPCA. The revelation that in some free range farms chickens are overcrowded and can't access the door to the outside has filled slow news days three or four times that I can remember.

It is a sad fact that not every free range farm can be the River Cottage ideal.

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 27, 2010 10:38pm

First up, let me just say that i'm emphatically not any kind of tree hugger or other type of wooly environmentalist. I am a skeptic (outspoken among my more gullible peers) and I have just stumbled across this website and spent the last ten hours engrossed in reading about some of my favorite pet subjects, and delighting in your clarity of exposition.
Not too keen on the anti-free range tone of this one though... I thoroughly agree that "free range" does not always mean what it's purported to mean. I also agree completely that the meat may be no better or worse than from intensively reared birds.

I disagree that it is not worthwhile to at least try and improve the conditions of these millions of (tasty)animals in their short lives. That is not to say chickens have anything approaching human levels of sentience and consciousness, but its not true to say that they cannot appreciate their environment or that they cannot feel any kind of pain. I do not of course mean the physical or phsycological pain to which we humans are accustomed to experiencing. Pain in this instance means "undue stress induced by unnatural environmental conditions". An explanation of my reasoning here would require a long digression relating to evolutionary biology so ill just wrap up my point like this: Almost anyone who studies a biology related discipline will agree that its simply not logical to draw a dividing line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom . Their simply is no line.

Duncan, Brisbane, Australia
September 07, 2010 5:12am